Letter: Not without hope for modern society

I gather Kenneth DeRoux didn't like what I had to say about contraceptives and our sexually permissive society. Be that as it may, I wish to respond to a number of his comments.

Mr. DeRoux says it is absurd to say that "contraceptives are agents of abortion." He may think it is absurd but it is true. If the "contraceptive" effect is to stop a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, it is an abortifacient since conception already has occurred. Efforts have been made by abortion proponents to change the definition of conception but it has not changed the biological fact of when human life begins.

I don't see the problem of describing sexual activity as elective behavior. What else does abstinence imply? Mr. DeRoux says we are programmed to engage in sex and to procreate. Apparently he believes the commonly asserted view that our teen-agers need to be given contraceptives because they are going to have sex anyway, as if it is beyond their ability to say no. Sex is a powerful drive with great mystery and beauty but not something to be irresponsibly or casually undertaken. We have an intellect and a free will. We are not merely animals. We choose whether or not to have sex.

I claimed we are living in a sexually permissive society. Mr. DeRoux asks "compared to what?" It doesn't have to be compared to anything. Words have meaning. If I said, "The weather is nice today," most people would understand what I mean without the necessity to compare it with other kinds of weather.

In like manner, when I speak about the "increased fornication, abortion, etc." it was in the context of the effect of having unlimited availability of contraceptives. Furthermore, nowhere did I state that the problems I listed have not occurred throughout human history. My point was simply that contraceptives play a prominent role in the formation of the attitudes and practices upon which our sexually permissive society is based. The result is promiscuous sex and all the problems that derive from it.

I think my disagreement with Mr. DeRoux is based on the fact that we have a different worldview of man. He seems much more resigned to the present state of affairs of our culture, whereas I cannot be indifferent about what I see going on. However, we are children of God with a free will, therefore I am not without hope for the future.